See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. The Spoons Experience
2. damnum absque injuria
3. batesline.com
4. One Fine Jay
5. damnum absque injuria
6. wild babes hentai babes cute babes young babes black babes indian babes spanish babes younger babes
7. string bikini contests g string bikinis teens in bikinis candid tiny micro bikini bikini girls hot wicked weasel bikini

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #2278
   On July 17th, 2004 at 3:07 pm, Mark C. Just said:

   This is an embarassment for the Republican Party. Senator Rick Santorum should definitely have a prime-time speaking role at the convention. He represents the true conservative wing of the Republican Party.

2. #2279
   On July 17th, 2004 at 3:08 pm, Athena said:

   Uhh, you.

3. #2280
   On July 17th, 2004 at 3:23 pm, JH said:

   Jesse Helms!

4. #2281
   On July 17th, 2004 at 3:27 pm, Xrlq said:

   I agree that a little more conservatism might be nice; a slot for Malkin herself would be great. But let’s not go overboard here; the principal objective of the convention is to help Bush and other Republicans win in November, not to make a particular segment of the party feel “validated.” There’s a reason why one former gubernatorial candidate, Arnold Schwarzenegger, will be speaking at the convention while another, Tom McClintock, will not. Can anyone guess what that reason might be?

5. #2282
   On July 17th, 2004 at 3:56 pm, Carolus said:

   I second Athena’s nomination! The party’s platform and the policies it advances are ultimately far more important than who gets to speak during prime-time. That’s the area to watch.

   I take issue with Xrlq’s implication that only liberal Republicans win elections. Schwarzenegger won the election in latge part because he promised to stop the drive to allow illegals to obtain drivers licenses (which is a stealth method by which the treason lobby adds Dhimmicrat voters to the rolls). He also won on the promise to do something about California’s budget disaster. The jury is still out, but it’s looking more and more like Schwarzenegger will cave.

   Rove has been purging the Republican party of conservatives for some time now. Liberals always dance to the left, which a clever blogger has dubbed the “Hegelian Mambo.” That’s why you see neoconservatives (right-liberals) steadlly caving on issue after issue. They used to be against racial-preferences, but now they parrot the Marxist slogan ‘Diversity is our strength.’ They used to be for limited government, but now have little problem with the expanding leviathan state.

   At the end of the day, there isn’t much difference in Michael Bloomberg’s vision for America and John Kerry’s. That’s the real problem.

6. #2283
   On July 17th, 2004 at 4:06 pm, Martin aka Blogbat said:

   Thanks for mentioning Judi’s article about the Ruckus. I know that News Max had also mentioned it as did I this morning in my blog quite extensively. It is a scary group, but what to me is far more troubling are what come about as a result of their attempts to interfere with Police and event security and the fact the Teresa and the Democrat party are funding and supporting it. To be generous, I will only say it must be because such “leaders” have not thought things through.
   I hope you are able to dig up some more information on this relationship.

7. #2284
   On July 17th, 2004 at 4:10 pm, Walter E. Wallis said:

   I agree with your recommendations which translates “Fat Chance.”

8. #2285
   On July 17th, 2004 at 4:27 pm, Bixby said:

   I say this with regret “GWB is destroying the conservative movement.”

   I cannot vote for him.

   Why?

   * Grutter Decision
   * Amnesties for Illegals
   * Expansion of Medicare
   * Teddy Kennedy’s Education Bill
   * McCain Feingold
   * AIDS Africa scam
   * Capitulation to ICC

   Is Kerry worse? Yes. Is that an arguement for voting for Bush? Not for me.

9. #2286
   On July 17th, 2004 at 4:34 pm, Martin aka Blogbat said:

   Bixby, I have hope. I think I can provide you with one reason to vote for Bush: the courts. Some top spots are coming up (and are open). These will either be filled by a Bush appointee or someone who fancies the model provided for our benefit by the 9th Circuit court of Appeals on the Left Coast. If the matter of the courts does not compel you, you might want to see a doctor

10. #2287
    On July 17th, 2004 at 4:37 pm, Spoons said:

    It’s not about making anybody, “feel validated,” X. It’s about deciding what sort of policies the Republican Party will stand for. If high-spending, pro-gun-control, pro-affirmative-action, illegal-immigrant-amnesty, pro-tarriff, dare-not-mention-abortion “Bush conservatism” is to be the order of the day, that has real consequences for how the Republican Party is going to govern, if elected.

11. #2288
    On July 17th, 2004 at 4:41 pm, Bixby said:

    Martin:

    The majority of Justices and Federal judges I would argue ARE appointed by Republican presidents.

    Look what we got: judicial tyranny.

    Do you think GWB is going to appoint a strong conservative. GET REAL.

    Rove and the rest of the RINOs that run the Republican party will never allow that.

    Look how quick he dumped Linda Chavez! Remember that?

    Remember, Bush is a “uniter not a divider”.

    Each year the Republican cheerleaders dangle the carrot “judges judges judges”. Fugeddaboutit Already.

    You can’t make a purse out of a pig’s ear.

12. #2289
    On July 17th, 2004 at 4:43 pm, Tim Keller said:

    I take issue with Xrlq’s implication that only liberal Republicans win elections. Schwarzenegger won the election in latge part because he promised to stop the drive to allow illegals to obtain drivers licenses (which is a stealth method by which the treason lobby adds Dhimmicrat voters to the rolls). He also won on the promise to do something about California’s budget disaster.

    Schwarzenegger won purely on the strength of his personality, plus a killer perception management team attacking his opposition & hiding the truth about his groping scandal.

    Conservatives know they have no chance (at a national level) in the marketplace of ideas, so they’re reduced to playing to the center in elections then running to the right once they’re elected. They can’t afford to show their true face at the convention.

    Take your pick:

    1) Get disowned in the convention but your man wins & rules further right than in term 1, giving you everything your black, shriveled hearts desire.

    or

    2) Spotlight true-blue Conservatives & Conservative ideals in the convention, only to lose in the election when Moderates are repulsed.

    Which do you prefer?

    Tim

13. #2290
    On July 17th, 2004 at 4:57 pm, Martin aka Blogbat said:

    I see what you’re saying, Bixby, however that isn’t really true when it comes to republican-nominated judges for the most part. Sure, there have been some aberrant judges, whom I won’t discount, but you must know that under Kerry such judges will be the stone-carved rule. Now listen, I’m no Bush hack. One only needs to see my rants thus far here about illegal immigration to know that. In fact, I was regional director for the Keyes campaign in 2000. Nevertheless, the rulings from Gay marriage to the Pledge case on down the line either met their dark fates at the hands of judges appointed by Democrats. The most notable judge who comes to mind is Ruth Bader Ginsburg who believes we ought to be like Amsterdam and lower the age of consent to 12 or 14. At the end of the day as much as we wish, we cannot allow our emotions, our sense of disgust with the mediocrity of this current administration, to get in the way of common sense. Politics is a dirty business, but far less soiled than the grave of dictatorship.

14. #2291
    On July 17th, 2004 at 5:01 pm, Martin aka Blogbat said:

    p.s. Let only those grumble who take an active part in their party from the lowest levels on up, who work to get their message across and see their agenda pushed forward by the delegates they have chosen. Come on people, if we don’t like the Republican landscape it’s our fault. Let there be a rational, long term plan for gaining it back instead.

15. #2292
    On July 17th, 2004 at 5:13 pm, Vanyogan said:

    Erika Harold, Miss America 2003

16. #2293
    On July 17th, 2004 at 5:16 pm, Joel said:

    Vote for Bush because of the Supreme Court? Not a chance. He hasn’t even been able to get a vote on his conservative appelate court judges – even WITH a GOP majority in the Senate. And the Democrats will fillibuster even more against a SUPREME court nominee.

    Besides, Bush has promised to appoint a Hispanic to the Supreme court. His two top options were Miguel Estrada (a conservative) and his chief of staff Alberto Gonzalez (a liberal who basically wrote Bush’s amicus curaie brief to the Supreme Court advocating de facto racial quotas/preferences in the Grutter/Grantz v. Michigan case AND who helped draft Bush’s amnesty for illegal immigrant plans).

    Bottom line: Gonzalez is a lock for the court, with Estrada being fillibustered and kept off the D.C. appelate court. Bush wants credit for a Hispanic Supreme Court justice, and the Dems will approve the liberal Gonzalez easily.

    If you like David Souter, vote to re-elect Bush. Gonzalez will be just like Souter.

17. #2294
    On July 17th, 2004 at 5:20 pm, Martin aka Blogbat said:

    I can see your “worst-case sceneio” Joel, but again my point: anything Bush deals out, Kerry will deal out far worse to the courts (as well as everywhere else in this land). You know, Bush is like an ugly car that smells bad. Who wants an ugly car that smells bad? Anyone who doesn’t want to walk

18. #2295
    On July 17th, 2004 at 5:33 pm, Xrlq said:

    Republican Presidents have a long track record of appointing judges who turn out to be more liberal than hoped. When asked about any mistakes he’s made, President Eisenhower famously replied that “two of them are sitting
    up there on the Supreme Court.” President Nixon gave us Justice Rehnquist, but he also gave us Harry Blackmun. Reagan got us Justice Scalia, but he also gave us the wobbly Kennedy and the increasingly goofy O’Connor. Bush I split the baby with Justices Thomas and Souter. It’s likely that Bush II, if re-elected, would do the same.

    This is hardly a ringing endorsement of Republican appointees, of course, but consider the alternative. Our judges are a mixed bag, but theirs are not. The last Democrat on the court who disappointed the liberals was Byron White, a Kennedy appointee.

    Bottom line: if Bush gets re-elected, the odds of us ending up with a decent Supreme Court by 2008 are roughly 50:50. If Kerry is elected, the chances are more like 95:5 against it.

19. #2296
    On July 17th, 2004 at 5:41 pm, Joel said:

    As to convention speakers:

    Tancredo, McClintock, and Connerly would be great, but they have to win a statewide election first. And to do that, they will need a conservative version of George Soros to fund them – since the corporations and rich people who fund GOP campaigns are all Rockefeller-country club liberal Republicans who want cheap labor (i.e. illegal immigration)and care nothing about any political issue that does not put more $$$$$ in their bank accounts.

    and as to Kerry’s judges being “far worse” than Bush’s?………..

    Is there any difference between Souter/Gonzales and Stephen Bryer? Even the differences between Judge Ginsberg and Bryer/Souter/Gonzales are virtually indistinguishable. And don’t bring up Clarence Thomas to claim that Bush is a conservative. Bush picked him because he was the highest ranking Republican black judge in the country, not for any ideology. So the Bush record on judges that were NOT chosen on the basis of a racial quota is: 1 liberal, no conservatives. That’s 100% liberal, not a 50-50 split. Kerry couldn’t be any worse.

20. #2297
    On July 17th, 2004 at 5:57 pm, Joel said:

    Tim,

    “Conservatives know they have no chance (at a national level) in the marketplace of ideas…”???

    Well, here in liberal California, where no GOP presidential candidate has carried the state since 1988, no GOP US Senate candidate has won since 1988, and no non-movie star Republican gubenatorial candidate has won since 1994……

    In the past 10 years California has passed propositions – usually by huge margins – that (if they were all enforced):

    1. Ended affirmative action
    2. Ended taxpayer subsidies for illegal immigrants
    3. Outlawed gay marriages
    4. Restricted bilingual education
    5. Given life prison terms to criminals on a 3rd felony conviction.

    The pattern here is that CONSERVATIVE policies WIN ballot propositions, while politically correct, LIBERAL Republican candidates who avoid these “controversial issues” LOSE elections.

    It’s no coincidence that Pete Wilson, the only non-Schwarzanagger Republican to be elected as Senator or Governor since 1986, basically owed his entire victory in 1994 to his support of Prop 187 and the death penalty.

21. #2298
    On July 17th, 2004 at 6:04 pm, Tim Keller said:

    The pattern here is that CONSERVATIVE policies WIN ballot propositions, while politically correct, LIBERAL Republican candidates who avoid these “controversial issues” LOSE elections.

    You’re talking about California, I’m talking about National. The simple fact is, the GOP isn’t putting “real” Conservatives on the podium at the convention because they know they’d say something embarrassing. At a National level, hardline Conservative ideas lose bigtime. They’re embarrassed about you.

    Tim

22. #2299
    On July 17th, 2004 at 6:28 pm, Mike McDaniel said:

    I think Bush and Rove are playing a cunning game here – they are trying to get the Democrats to have a convention straight out of the rabid-dog Left playbook, then roll out the Republican moderates and look like the only sane party.

    We don’t need to control the rhetoric. We want control of policy and the courts.

23. #2300
    On July 17th, 2004 at 6:49 pm, axion said:

    Not that it would happen, but I would love to see Alan Keyes speaking at the convention. I was blessed to be in the audience at one of his talks. His energy and conviction is unparalleled. He is a true conservative.

24. #2301
    On July 17th, 2004 at 6:50 pm, Bixby said:

    Martin:

    I agree with what you say, maybe it is better to vote for Bush? But I won’t.

    I am voting for other Republicans at the state and Federal level. There isn’t a single Democrat I am voting for.

    I got a great State Rep, and I am voting for Kris Kobach for Congress.

    The Republican party is ROTTEN at the top, not the bottom. The higher you rise the more you stink – the RINO syndrome.

25. #2302
    On July 17th, 2004 at 6:56 pm, Lisa said:

    Mark is right,Santorum should speak! Bixby is dead wrong! Martin is also correct! For the love of Pete! Don’t elect Bush because of past judicial appointments!!!!!!!

26. #2303
    On July 17th, 2004 at 7:00 pm, Lisa said:

    not viting for George Bush is like slitting your own throat! Why would you enable Kerry by not voting for Bush?

27. #2304
    On July 17th, 2004 at 7:19 pm, Xrlq said:

    Joel, you’re reaching. Justice Souter is among the most liberal Justices on the bench. Gonzales would not be, although admittedly, he is more liberal than my tastes. Your own example, the Gratz and Grutter cases, proves as much. Justice Souter voted to uphold affirmative action in both cases, while the Bush brief called on te court to split the baby by upholding it in Gratz and striking it down in Grutter, which is exactly what the Supreme Court did. So the better analogy for Gonzales is not to Justice Souter, but to O’Connor, the only Justice who sided with the Bush Administration in both cases. And as far as Bush appointees goes, that’s the worst case scenario. The best case scenario is that he appoints Miguel Estrada, Janice Brown, or any of several other solid conservatives who John Kerry wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole.

    But go ahead, cast a half a vote for Kerry if you wish. He’s going to carry California, regardless, so your vote and mine aren’t really going to matter anyway.

28. #2305
    On July 17th, 2004 at 7:38 pm, Martin aka Blogbat said:

    Well now, I’m going to throw a curve ball and say that Rhetoric is of significant importance in any campaign, be it political or otherwise. Even in one’s personal life (as the many Dr Laura fans here will likely agree). Any coach or Army officer will tell you that training matters, but without knowing why and who and that we can– without, we are most surely beaten before we even try. Even Clinton knew this, which is why his staffers harped on not “talking down the economy”. Somewhere along the way we forget that ideas, policies and campaigns are still made up of people. Funny thing that is, really.

    Now as for conservative trumping moderate to the public, I have to say I usually will agree with Tim Keller when he says,

    “The pattern here is that CONSERVATIVE policies WIN ballot propositions, while politically correct, LIBERAL Republican candidates who avoid these “controversial issues” LOSE elections.”

    Or have we bought that much of the liberal media over the past 20 years? Ronald Reagan wasn’t popular because he was a great communicator, to paraphrase him, but because he communicated great ideas. What are the great ideas today? And who sells them with passion and optimism? That is America and that would sell because after all, it’s real and honest and right. And Americans know it.

29. #2306
    On July 17th, 2004 at 8:10 pm, Xrlq said:

    Reagan wasn’t a “real conservative” in his day, either, although he’s fondly remembered that way now. Right now, Arnold stumping for Bush is about the best we can do.

30. #2307
    On July 17th, 2004 at 8:59 pm, Martin aka Blogbat said:

    „Ahnold“ does have charm. Na, er kann natürlich auch aweng gut Deutsch— wenn solche südliche Dialekte wirksam sind, äi?

    I hate to get into a discussion on what the meaning of “is” is, but I suppose I can explore it a bit. By Ante-Reagan conservative do you mean the Rockefeller conservative? Well, I agree that was not the Gipper. That Rockefeller style is far cozier to the Bush types (though we shouldn’t beat around the Bush too much), as well as the Schwarzenegger’s and McCain’s (though they arguably are almost fully fledged Liberals). And certainly the Rockefeller’s were more dull than Reagan- the whole family (I should know, my mom dated one of them in the 60’s and found him quite boring, and so here I am). So people found Reagan, and who believed that the good old America they grew up believing in and seeing first hand was still there?

    Reagan-Conservative, Americana, by whichever name anyone would wish to call it, identified with America’s values and was able to also articulate them well enough to let us know that it was so. That is a winning strategy, if I may sound so cynical. I don’t think too many of the public are after names, titles or labels as they are after records and chutzpah. Certainly Reagan measured well in both of them. The elder Bush was on his way to reform post-Reagan, but lacked that sense of destiny that allowed him to listen to the people more than he listened to the press, which of course made us lose our respect for his performance by virtue of his record.

    Of course we hear from every corner that we must grow more liberal with each generation and all of that hogwash. Well, what does that say about being anything but a die-hard communist? If the rest of us are simply aspiring to one day be so Liberal, then why not just get it over with?

    Obviously trends are made up of people who make choices because they let other people- or information- influence them. The trend in our country has been to the left because we have let ourselves be put upon by the Leftwing press and education establishment without even realizing it. Next thing you know, they will start sheering us every springtime :p

31. #2308
    On July 17th, 2004 at 10:16 pm, Bob Postal said:

    It seems like perfect timing to let Bill Buckley speak.

32. #2309
    On July 18th, 2004 at 12:07 am, Carolus said:

    Erika Harold and Alan Keyes woud be great additions to our dream-list – much as it might offend leftists (aka “moderates”) like Tim.

    Xrlq makes a strong argument. The odds of Kerry appointing anyone but a Marxist are zero. With GWB, we might get a few decent federal judges. Gonzales is a disaster, as is O’Connor – who is rumored to be Bush’s pick for chief justice. I happen to live in a leftist-owned state (Illinois) which Bush hasn’t a prayer of winning. So, I’ll probably vote for the Constitution Party just to send the Illinois RINO-mafia a message.

    If it should by some miracle look close for this state by October, I’ll likely hold my nose and vote for GWB.

33. #2310
    On July 18th, 2004 at 12:28 am, clark said:

    Michael Reagan!

    As a speaker, Michael Reagan would be a slap against the Dems using Ron Reagan in Boston; plus, he can make the pitch that Bush and the Republican party have their roots in his father Ronald Reagan.

34. #2311
    On July 18th, 2004 at 1:17 am, chewydog said:

    Tancredo
    The Co. media trash him daily. I don’t know if he’s all that conservative(not my district). Gee, do you think the average American voter has a big objection to enforcing our laws? Speaker?..Never happen.